Double Dribble

[rockyroad]

I don't have my rulebooks at work today, so can someone look up in Rule 4 the definition of shot or try...doesn't the definition (or the words being defined) include the word "thrown"???

[Hawks Coach]

Rocky
Rule 4-40-2
A try for field goal is an attempt by a player to score two or three points by throwing the ball into a team' s own basket. A player is trying for goal when the player has the ball and in the official’s judgment is throwing or attempting to throw for goal.

The official's judgment part, I will concede, leads one to question the case 5.2.1 as being a try. However, as I have said before, I think the case exists to take official's judgment out of any situation involving A throwing and ball going into A's basket because it has become a try, regardless of what you may have thought it was. If it doesn't go in, you are still authorized under 4-40-2 to determine whether you think it is a try (e.g., in awarding two FTs).

MN-essentially, JR and I agree on this, and you have a different interpretation of 5.2.1 which also allows you to ignore a case and rules that completely conflict with your interpretation. JR and I have an interpretation of 5.2.1 that allows 4.40.4 to make sense and be completely consistent within the rules and cases. Your interpretation, no matter how you justify it, does not allow this to occur and must therefore be suspect at best.

[Viking32]

After all these posts, I think we can all agree on one thing. When a rule is changed, it will sometimes unintentionally conflict with other existing rules. IMO, that's what happened here.

I'm going to amend my view a little bit.

The intent of this rule is to take some of the guesswork out of officiating and give a team credit for 3 points even if they were trying an alley-oop. If someone bounces a pass off of an oppenent and it goes in, I would have a hard time justifying giving them 3 points, based on common sense. (Although I do believe that's what the rule says.) I believe that was the intent of NFHS when this rule was written.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by MN 3 Sport Ref
Again I will go to 2002-2003 Casebook (FED) sitch 5.2.1C.

This case has an asterick by it as it is a new caseplay this year. Earlier posts have said that this took the judgement from the official on wether this is a shot or not. Like it or not that is true. We covered this extensively at our state meetings. Unfortunatly (I don't like the ruleing either) this case IS a three point award. NFHS is very careful about using the word(s) tip, try, pass, and throw in their wordings the case says THROWN which for some of you can imply the ball was never even nearly at the level of the rim. The ball legally touches the B player (no kick, punch etc) and goes through the hoop. If A is outside the arc when this ball is thrown it IS a three point basket.

Once again, the whole point of this rule and case is to eliminate the need for a decision of whether it was a try or not. It is not for awarding 3 points for a wild ricochet.

By strict reading of the rule as you suggest, A1 could throw a bad pass into the post. B1 could tip the ball to B2 who could tip it to B3 who could tip it to B4 who could eventually tip the ball in to A basket which would be counted as a 3 pointer for A. Of course this is as patently riduculous and incorrect as is the case for a ball bouncing off someones head.

I guess they expected the officials to have enough common sense to interpet that the thrown ball being discussed is one that was thrown toward the basket. That was the whole premise for adding the new rule. There was never an issue for deflected balls going in the basket.

I do agree, however, that this thrown ball is NOT a try. The ball is dead on a horn, foul, etc.



[Edited by Camron Rust on Jan 16th, 2003 at 03:58 PM]

[Hawks Coach]

viking
Either the rules are in conflict, or they are just not phrased in such a way that you can tell that they do not conflict. I of course have chosen the latter interpretation, and you the former. Either way, it could be better.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
[/B]

I guess they expected the officials to have enough common sense to interpet that the thrown ball being discussed is one that was thrown toward the basket. That was the whole premise for adding the new rule. There was never an issue for deflected balls going in the basket.

I do agree, however, that this thrown ball is NOT a try. The ball is dead on a horn, foul, etc.
[/B][/QUOTE]I just wanna add that,in Casebook play 5.2.1SitC though,if the legal touching by B on the TRY is AFTER the horn,the ball is still alive-and the basket counts if it goes in. That's Casebook play 5.6.1SIT.

Kinda all flows together,believe it or not.

[rockyroad]

Thanks Hawks Coach...I knew the word thrown was in the definition of try...it seems - in reading these posts - that the whole debate has been about the word thrown ball being in case 5.2.whatever...yet the word thrown is also in the definition for try...seems pretty clear to me that we do not award three points when a passed ball bounces off someone's shoulder, hear, arse, or anything else based on 4.4.whatever...is it really the word "thrown" that is messing this up??

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
Guys this rule was changed LAST year. Here is the current wording:
5-2-1 ...A successful try, tap or thrown ball that does not touch the floor, a teammate or official, from the field by a player who is located behind the team's own 19-foot, 9-inch line counts three points. Any other goal from the field counts two points for the team into whose basket the ball is thrown.

Now let's review the play that I first wrote: "A1 is behind the 3 pt. line and throws the ball into the lane where it hits B1 in the head and then goes into the basket without ever touching the floor."
1. Was this a thrown ball, from the field, by a player who is located behind the team's own 3pt. line? Yes.
2. Did the ball touch the floor? No.
3. Did the ball touch a teammate? No. It hit an opponent.
4. Did the ball touch an official? No.
RULING: It counts for three points!

In addition, the casebook play that accompanies this rule has been reworded THIS YEAR. Here is this year's wording:
5.2.1 Situation C: A1 throws the ball from behind the three-point line. The ball is legally touched by: (a) B1 who is in the three-point area; (b) B1 who is in the two-point area; (c) A2 who is in the three-point area; or (d) A2 who is in the two-point area. The ball continues in flight and goes through A's basket. Ruling: In (a) and (b), three points are scored since the legal touching was by the defense and the ball was thrown from behind the three-point line. In (c), score three points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred behind the three-point line. In (d), score two points since the legal touch by a teammate occurred in the two-point area.

My play falls under part (b) of this Case Book play and is ruled to be three-points.

It is my belief that since both of these were just updated, that they correctly reflect the rules committee's current view on this play. The Case Book play that JR has pointed out, 4.40.4 Situation B, which says to score two points, was not updated in the past two years. My opinion is that this was an oversight by the committee, and since they conflict, we should go with the newer ruling.

It seems that the main point of those taking the other side is that the ball was below the level of the ring when it hit the defender. According to the new wording of 5-2-1 this no longer matters. Adding the words "thrown ball" to the rule means that it no longer has to be a try. We now only have to look at where the ball was thrown from, and what it hit before going into the basket.

Hey, I don't write the rules, I just read them!

Let's take this a little further and add Rule 4-4 to the mix..

Ball location...ART. 5 . . . A ball which touches ..the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds...


Taken literally, if that thrown ball (or even a try) touched the backboard, it nullifies, by your interpretation, any 3-point possibility since it did touch the equivalent (by rule 4-4-5) of the floor. So, by the literal reading of the rule, and by your interp. it would be a three if it bounces off someones head and into the basket but not if it bounces off the backboard and into the basket. Can you see how silly this is getting?

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

Let's take this a little further and add Rule 4-4 to the mix..

Ball location...ART. 5 . . . A ball which touches ..the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds...


Taken literally, if that thrown ball (or even a try) touched the backboard, it nullifies, by your interpretation, any 3-point possibility since it did touch the equivalent (by rule 4-4-5) of the floor. So, by the literal reading of the rule, and by your interp. it would be a three if it bounces off someones head and into the basket but not if it bounces off the backboard and into the basket. Can you see how silly this is getting?

Camron,
You have made a great point. In fact, you have made my original point, which was simply to show that when a ball hits a player (or in the instance that you point out the backboard) it is NOT that same as that ball actually hitting the floor. It is only to be treated as hitting the floor at that location if we have to make a judgment on the ball's location. This means whether the ball is inbounds, OOB, in the frontcourt, in the backcourt, etc. That is all that I was trying to say in the first place. Actually, if I had it to do over again, I would have chosen your example (as JR said in his first response, maybe I should pick another) to prove my point and not the one that I did select, but then look at the fascinating debate we would have missed!
Now, since three full pages of posts have gone by since I have last posted, I can finally say, after reading everyone's thoughts, the wording of the new RULE 5-2-1 (not casebook play) is simply TERRIBLE!!!
I agree with all of those that say this was written with the intent that we should no longer have to judge between a try and a pass. However, the rules committee chose their words SO POORLY that the absurd plays that many of us have concocted now result in awarding three points! The committee simply botched this one. The wording of the new rule is awful. I hope that my original post shows this. If we simply read the rule, 5-2-1, and analyze the play using it, we must award three points. Like MNREF I think this is stupid, but that is what they wrote! What should we do? Do we ignore what the new rule (and I am not talking about the casebook) says and only award two or do we enforce it AS WRITTEN (as the paragraph at the start of the rules book says to do) and give three?
Either way, we look bad, and it is the rules committee's fault. If nothing else, I hope that my original post highlights how poorly some of these rules are currently phrased. Can't they put someone on this committee who can write clearly?
My deepest regards to JR, Camron, Viking, MN, and the others who have taken the time to share their thoughts in this debate, and make us all better officials.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 18th, 2003 at 07:52 AM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

[/B]

Camron,
You have made a great point. In fact, you have made my original point, which was simply to show that when a ball hits a player (or in the instance that you point out the backboard) it is NOT that same as that ball actually hitting the floor. It is only to be treated as hitting the floor at that location if we have to make a judgment on the ball's location.[/B][/QUOTE]Geeze,I hope that this doesn't start another week of posts,Nevada,but ya still got 'er wrong. The 3-point shot hitting B1 on the head in the key is EXACTLY THE SAME as hitting the floor at that location in the key-explicitly by Rule 4-4-4.That now ends the 3-point try under Rule 4-40-4.We NOW use that location to determine what happens next.That's why,if the ball now rebounds in,it's only worth 2 points,as per Rule 5-2-1. The ball touching the board in R4-4-5 DOESN'T end a try(whether it's 2 points or 3 points),so R4-40-4 is NOT applicable in that case.

[Nevadaref]

JR, You missed the point that I was trying to make.
The rule Camron cited says that "A ball which touches ..the backboard is treated the same as touching the floor inbounds." My point was that this is not always true. A 3 pt. try which hits the backboard and then goes in is one such exception. For if hitting the backboard really was treated the same as hitting the floor, then this try would be over upon hitting the backboard, and the ball subsequently entering the basket would only be worth two points. This is certainly not true. That is what Camron wrote. I am saying that from this example we can infer that the ball hitting the backboard it is NOT the same as hitting the floor, not matter how plainly 4-4-5 seems to say that.
I believe that you are reading 4-4 as an absolute which applies in all situations. This is not the case. An official only applies this rule when needing to determine the ball's location in order to call a backcourt or 10 second violation, or something along these lines.

In fact, there are many situations where the application of 4-4 would be quite wrong.
Even you will concede that during a clear 3pt try (not pass or thrown ball) which is deflected on its way up by a defender who is located inside the two point area, the ball DOES NOT take on the location of that defender (as per 4-4-3) nor is the deflection THE SAME as the ball touching the floor at that defender's location (as 4-4-4 states). Rule 4-4 simply doesn't apply to this situation. That was my original point.
Now it is true that I selected a vague and poorly worded, but recently amended, rule to support this claim. You and others have made that clear and I have conceded that. However, my original point still stands. The ball touching a player IS NOT THE SAME as ACTUALLY touching the floor at that location. 4-4-4 is not a blanket rule meant to apply in all situations.
PS In the play where the ball hits the player in the head and then goes in you have incorrectly argued that this is only two points due to 4-4-4.

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The 3-point shot hitting B1 on the head in the key is EXACTLY THE SAME as hitting the floor at that location in the key-explicitly by Rule 4-4-4.That now ends the 3-point try under Rule 4-40-4.

Even three year's ago, when we all agreed that this play was only worth two points 4-4-4 was not the reason that was so.
This rule has nothing to do with it. Even the case book play which you keep citing says that the try ended "when it was obviously short and below the ring," not when it hit the player's shoulder. That try had ended well before striking the player. So you cannot cite 4-4-4 as the reason that it ended.
Only the certainty that it will or will not be successful, actually hitting the floor (not vicariously hitting the floor), or the ball becoming dead ends a try.
For example: If a 3 pt. try on the way up happened to deflect off the head of a defender, inside the two point area, but located very near to the shooter, and then go in, it would not end and would still be worth three. No matter whether the play happened three years ago or yesterday.

[Jurassic Referee]

Nevada,I've made all the points that I wanted to make on this sitch.If you want to disagree,fine.I stand by everything that I posted,and anything further from me is just a waste of time IMO.

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Nevada,I've made all the points that I wanted to make on this sitch.If you want to disagree,fine.I stand by everything that I posted,and anything further from me is just a waste of time IMO.

...Still with you JR.